| Literature DB >> 35565101 |
Huaquan Zhang1, Abbas Ali Chandio1, Fan Yang1, Yashuang Tang1, Martinson Ankrah Twumasi1, Ghulam Raza Sargani1.
Abstract
In recent years, the changing climate has become a major global concern, and it poses a higher threat to the agricultural sector around the world. Consequently, this study examines the impact of changing climate and technological progress on soybean yield in the 13 major provinces of China, and considers the role of agricultural credit, farming size, public investment, and power of agricultural machinery from 2000 to 2020. Fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS) and dynamic ordinary least squares (DOLS) are applied to assess the long-run effect, while Dumitrescu and Hurlin's (2012) causality test is used to explore the short-run causalities among the studied variables. The results revealed that an increase in the annual mean temperature negatively and significantly affects soybean yield, while precipitation expressively helps augment soybean yield. Furthermore, technological factors such as chemical fertilizers accelerate soybean yield significantly, whereas pesticides negatively influence soybean yield. In addition, farming size, public investment, and power of agricultural machinery contribute remarkably to soybean yield. The causality results endorse that chemical fertilizers, pesticides used, agricultural credit, public investment, and power of agricultural machinery have bidirectional causality links with soybean yield. This study suggests several fruitful policy implications for sustainable soybean production in China.Entities:
Keywords: China; climate change; soybean yield; technological progress
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35565101 PMCID: PMC9103772 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095708
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Major soybean-producing provinces of China, trends from 2000 to 2020.
Figure 2Map of the study area.
The measurements of the studied variables and data source.
| Variables | Symbol | Measurement | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yield of soybean |
| kg/ha | CSY |
| Mean annual temperature |
| Degree Celsius | CSY |
| Mean annual rainfall |
| Mm | CSY |
| Fertilizers consumption |
| 10,000 tons | CSY |
| Pesticides used |
| Tons | CSY |
| Farm size |
| 1000 ha | CSY |
| Agricultural credit |
| RMB 100 million | CSY |
| Public investment |
| RMB 100 million | CSY |
| Agricultural power consumption |
| 10,000 kilowatts | CSY |
Note: CSY denotes the China Statistical Yearbook, while RMB stands for Renminbi.
The descriptive statistics of the studied variables.
|
| Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| lnsoyby | 4.0918 | 0.8886 | 2.5885 | 6.8246 |
| lntemp | 2.3899 | 0.5218 | 0.8329 | 2.9231 |
| lnrf | 6.4813 | 0.4707 | 5.2183 | 7.8702 |
| lnferc | 5.5275 | 0.4541 | 4.3141 | 6.5738 |
| pestc | 7.7633 | 4.1510 | 0.8900 | 17.3500 |
| lnfs | 8.7474 | 0.3544 | 7.9842 | 9.7523 |
| lncredit | 7.6070 | 1.7138 | 4.4434 | 10.5751 |
| lnpinvet | 5.3345 | 1.3065 | 2.2310 | 8.7098 |
| lnagrpc | 8.2550 | 0.6452 | 6.9230 | 9.4994 |
Figure 3Steps of econometric strategy for the presenet study.
Cross-sectional dependence testing results.
|
| Breusch-Pagan LM | Pesaran Scaled LM | Pesaran CD |
|---|---|---|---|
| lnsoyby | 311.6154 | 17.6633 | 5.2415 |
| lntemp | 230.7756 | 11.1910 | 6.4063 |
| lnrf | 173.0196 | 6.5668 | 6.6930 |
| lnferc | 420.3057 | 26.3655 | 4.2402 |
| pestc | 228.0176 | 10.9701 | 10.1171 |
| lnfs | 359.0804 | 21.4636 | 5.9248 |
| lncredit | 394.5919 | 24.3068 | 15.1850 |
| lnpinvet | 455.5671 | 29.1887 | 15.0127 |
| lnagrpc | 422.8512 | 26.5693 | 7.1716 |
Unit root testing results.
| CADF Test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | Fist-Difference | |||
| lnsoyby | −1.517 | 0.827 | −3.039 *** | 0.000 |
| lntemp | −1.194 | 0.984 | −3.463 *** | 0.000 |
| lnrf | −1.780 | 0.485 | −2.302 ** | 0.026 |
| lnferc | −2.278 ** | 0.029 | −2.161 * | 0.073 |
| pestc | −2.010 | 0.186 | −2.951 *** | 0.000 |
| lnfs | 1.608 | 1.000 | −3.519 *** | 0.000 |
| lncredit | −1.967 | 0.232 | −3.006 *** | 0.000 |
| lnpinvet | −1.131 | 0.991 | −2.850 *** | 0.000 |
| lnagrpc | −2.334 ** | 0.018 | −2.345 ** | 0.015 |
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, and * p < 0.1.
Panel co-integration testing method.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Within dimension | Panel PP-Stat | −3.055407 *** | 0.0011 |
| Panel ADF-Stat | −3.079233 *** | 0.0010 | |
| Between dimension | Group PP-Stat | −2.775922 *** | 0.0028 |
| Group ADF-Stat | −2.859674 *** | 0.0021 | |
| Kao Test | ADF t-Statistic | −2.275874 ** | 0.0114 |
Note: *** p < 0.01 and ** p < 0.05.
Benchmark results.
|
| Coef. | Std. Err. | z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DOLS | ||||
| lntemp | −0.979 *** | 0.164 | −5.960 | 0.000 |
| lnrf | 0.721 *** | 0.103 | 7.010 | 0.000 |
| lnferc | 0.562 *** | 0.171 | 3.280 | 0.001 |
| pestc | −0.043 *** | 0.014 | −3.030 | 0.002 |
| lnfs | 1.183 *** | 0.190 | 6.220 | 0.000 |
| lncredit | −0.203 *** | 0.056 | −3.590 | 0.000 |
| lnpinvet | 0.085 | 0.068 | 1.260 | 0.208 |
| lnagrpc | 0.060 | 0.113 | 0.530 | 0.596 |
| _Cons | −10.770 *** | 1.666 | −6.460 | 0.000 |
| FMOLS | ||||
| lntemp | −1.202 ** | 0.478 | −2.520 | 0.012 |
| lnrf | 1.055 *** | 0.281 | 3.750 | 0.000 |
| lnferc | 0.817 * | 0.473 | 1.730 | 0.084 |
| pestc | −0.031 | 0.039 | −0.800 | 0.425 |
| lnfs | 0.958 * | 0.538 | 1.780 | 0.075 |
| lncredit | −0.356 ** | 0.154 | −2.310 | 0.021 |
| lnpinvet | 0.148 | 0.192 | 0.770 | 0.440 |
| lnagrpc | 0.301 | 0.318 | 0.950 | 0.344 |
| _Cons | −12.394 *** | 4.566 | −2.710 | 0.007 |
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, and * p < 0.1.
Figure 4Summary of long-run estimates. “+ve” and “-ve” denote the positive effect and the negative effect, respectivley.
D–H panel causality exploration.
| Null Hypothesis: | W-Stat. | Zbar-Stat. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| lntemp does not homogeneously cause lnsoyby | 1.27581 | 0.28890 | 0.7727 |
| lnsoyby does not homogeneously cause lntemp | 2.25402 | 2.27245 | 0.0231 ** |
| lnrf does not homogeneously cause lnsoyby | 0.69129 | −0.89634 | 0.3701 |
| lnsoyby does not homogeneously cause lnrf | 4.06778 | 5.95028 | 3 × 10−9 *** |
| lnferc does not homogeneously cause lnsoyby | 4.48484 | 6.79596 | 1 × 10−11 *** |
| lnsoyby does not homogeneously cause lnferc | 6.72337 | 11.3351 | 0.0000 *** |
| pestc does not homogeneously cause lnsoyby | 3.10588 | 3.99980 | 6 × 10−5 *** |
| lnsoyby does not homogeneously cause pestc | 2.50988 | 2.79127 | 0.0053 *** |
| lnfs does not homogeneously cause lnsoyby | 0.89766 | −0.47788 | 0.6327 |
| lnsoyby does not homogeneously cause lnfs | 0.76569 | −0.74549 | 0.4560 |
| lncredit does not homogeneously cause lnsoyby | 2.36589 | 2.49930 | 0.0124 ** |
| lnsoyby does not homogeneously cause lncredit | 2.51493 | 2.80151 | 0.0051 *** |
| lnpinvet does not homogeneously cause lnsoyby | 3.01979 | 3.82523 | 0.0001 *** |
| lnsoyby does not homogeneously cause lnpinvet | 3.84148 | 5.49141 | 4 × 10−8 *** |
| lnagrpc does not homogeneously cause lnsoyby | 3.98780 | 5.78810 | 7 × 10−9 *** |
| lnsoyby does not homogeneously cause lnagrpc | 3.19739 | 4.18535 | 3 × 10−5 *** |
Note: *** p < 0.01 and ** p < 0.05.
Figure 5Key findings of the D–H test.